Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peresvet-class battleship/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2016.

Peresvet-class battleship

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The three Russian Peresvet-class battleships were designed to support their armored cruisers in a commerce-raiding war if war broke out with the British in the late 19th century. They were optimized for high speed and endurance to this end rather than heavy armor and armament, but the situation was vastly different in the war that they actually fought against the Japanese in 1904–05. The two ships that reached the Far East before war began fought creditably in the two major fleet actions with the Imperial Japanese Navy and were ultimately sunk in harbor. The third ship was part of the Baltic Fleet that was destroyed at the Battle of Tsushima in 1905 and was the first ship sunk during the battle. The other two ships were salvaged and placed into service by the Japanese after the war. One was sold back to the Russians in 1916 and sank after hitting mines in the Mediterranean while the other participated in the Battle of Tsingtao in 1914. She was probably scrapped around 1923. It just passed a MilHist A-class review which included an image review. As usual, I'd like reviewers to look for examples of unexplained jargon and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments, leaning support. Very nice effort. The usual quibbles:
 * Design
 * "gainfully employed" mildly dislike using "employed" in this context for non-people. Maybe "gainfully occupied" or just "busy"?
 * Shorter is usually better.
 * "To reduce biofouling, the hulls of the first two ships were sheathed with wood and copper, but this was eliminated in Pobeda to reduce weight. They had a partial double bottom and the hull was divided by 10 watertight transverse bulkheads" grammatically, "they" refers to "the hulls", ditto "their" in the following sentence. Suggest changing "They" to "the vessels".
 * "Their crew" maybe "Each crew".
 * Protection
 * 6 inches is never converted to Metric.
 * See the 2nd para of the design section.
 * History
 * "Peresvet, however, was scuttled in shallow water on that same day." I'm not seeing the however. Both ships went to the bottom. There's not much contrast there, especially since per your excellent Peresvet article, there is uncertainty as to the reason for the scuttling.
 * That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that you may be overthinking things as the Peresvet article makes it clear that she was not sunk by Japanese shells and I carried that over into this article. Look over them both again and see if this is still a problem and we can discuss it further if necessary.
 * Support. What you say is satisfactory.  Sorry to be slow in getting back.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Source review All sources appear of encyclopedic quality and are consistently cited with the following exceptions:
 * McLaughlin 2008. Should not the word "and" between the ship names be italicized? (if you agree, you might want to change it in the other articles in which it is used)--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not assure that I understand your comment. The entire article title is enclosed in quotation marks via the cite journal template.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What I mean is since ship names are normally italicized, you recognize this in this italicized book title by not italicizing them. However, the word "and" that lies between the two ship names should be italicized as it is just a part of the book title and not part of a ship name.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I understand, done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Image review
 * The Naval Annual should be italicized
 * Good catch.
 * File:Peresvet1901.jpg: when and where was this first published? Same with File:Suou1908Yokosuka.jpg
 * The former was discussed in the image review for Peresvet. I've fixed the license of the latter one as it was mostly likely taken by a sailor during the visit of the Great White Fleet to Japan in 1908.
 * File:Oslybya23.jpg: when and where was this first published, and under which provision do we assert it is PD in Russia?
 * File:Oslyabya1903Bizerte.jpg: when and where was this first published, and what steps have been taken to ensure that a) it is a EU work, and b) the author was never credited?
 * Both of the Oslyabya pics were discussed in the Oslyaba image review.
 * File:Peresviet_Port_Arthur_LOC_3f06353u.jpg: why the Japan tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good catch, I think I've gotten a bit too used to automatically assigning a Japanese tag for ships that served in the IJN.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * Might be worthwhile to mention that Japan and Russia were allies in World War I in the lead - readers might be confused why former enemies were trading ships. I might say something like this: "Peresvet was sold back to the Russians during World War I, as the two countries were by now allies, and sank after hitting German mines in the Mediterranean in early 1917. Pobeda, renamed Suwo, instead remained in Japanese service and participated in the Battle of Tsingtao in late 1914."
 * You might unpack the Russian decision to focus on a guerre de course strategy with Britain - I think readers might ask why after reading that line.
 * There's a link for mild steel that might be useful - on a related note, is the chrome-nickel steel used on Pobeda Krupp armor? Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these suggestions. I've done the first one already, but the other two are going to take some time to source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe not as much as I thought.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good, but I guess I wasn't clear enough on the chrome nickel steel - that's in the line talking about the deck armor. I'd assume it's Krupp armor, since there wasn't a competing alloy that I'm aware of, but the average reader won't know that. Parsecboy (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's not Krupp armor, just a tougher alloy than mild steel, better suited to deflect glancing hits.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.